Of course. Wow. Some people need to get out of Washington more. Does Politico writer Eamon Javers really think that that we all remember the name William Ginsburg and his overexposure on Sunday shows 10 years ago? Or is this just another inane use of the verbal filler "of course"?

Chris Wallace had some really good commentary on this situation this morning when he was interviewed on Fox's Saturday morning news show. He said that this WH is the most "petty" he's ever covered and that they were a bunch of "crybabies". He said that they've called him in the past to complain about coverage. Let's remember that Chris Wallace is a Democrat and is probably the most fair interviewer in television news.

Most "racism" now isn't racism. It is only racism because the race hustlers say it is, and they will say whatever they want is racism whenever it suits them.

And so, whenever it suits them, even after Obama is formally made into Big Brother, with TV screens installed into the walls of our homes in order to force us to watch his speeches 24/7, even then, they will accuse criticism of Obama to be racism.

Stayed tuned -- perhaps by October, when this latest round of presidential blather fails to accomplish anything for him, he'll give that a try. After all, O-man's always been most fascinated by his Song of Myself, and there's not much about himself that he hasn't exposed already.

Early in his Administration, it was common to hear people say that he was something of a mystery. But that was when folks were trying to make sense of what he was doing in terms of his post-partisan, post-racial pose from the campaign. That's pretty much over with, and now we're into the 'what you see is what you get' phase. Anne puts that in the future ('when that happens'), but I think it's already happened. In either event, though, 'naked' makes sense on many levels -- it's really all that's left.

Castro and Chavez are famous for their lengthy speeches. They don't seem to know when to put a cap on it. I don't yet put Obama in their class, but he's definitely heading there....Also the inability of the professional mockers to mock this incessant speechifying is troubling. The monologues of late night comedians is one of the checks and balances of our system. They have been sadly remiss when it comes to Obama.

Health care reform is dead, and probably just as well since it had nothing to do with health care and everything to do with wealth care for ins. companies.No amount of selling by the President will revive it.That being said, republicans are deluding themselves if they think that they have shown brightly in this fiasco. They have not.In the absence of solutions they have offered the usual mantra of republican talking points that have more to do with fear, greed, and vindictivness than with any thing approching reality or anyrecognition that health care is a problem in this country and that it will continue to be a problem for those who will never be able to afford the staggering costs of modern day medicine.No amount of conservative spin can avoid the fact that this number is growing by the day by the week and by the month.It has always been understood and accepted in this country that little people recieve little justice. I think that now we can we can say much the same thing about little people and health care as well.

I would like to defend the "of course" tic. It indicates the verbal equivalent of a footnote, and is a highly useful device. It means, of course, the opposite of its literal meaning, saying "I know that most of my audience will not know this but I will courteously pretend to assume that they do while explaining it in passing." A triumph of civility and communication. I will not let it be impugned without rebuttal.

jace wrote:That being said, republicans are deluding themselves if they think that they have shown brightly in this fiasco. They have not.In the absence of solutions they have offered the usual mantra of republican talking points that have more to do with fear, greed, and vindictivness (blah blah blah, usual leftwing stuff)....

First, it's "shone brightly", not "shown brightly".

Second, if you'd like to change someone's mind sometime instead of boring and insulting them, try a little recognition of the fact that the goal of conservatives is not "fear, greed, and vindictiveness", but small government and freedom? See, it's a legitimate goal, wanting freedom. We don't want socialism. We value liberty over equality, while you value equality over liberty. If you want to change someone's mind, tell them why equality is more important than liberty instead of calling them venal bigots. Because while we DO "fear" that you want to take away significant parts of our freedom (and you do!), we are not greedy (conservatives donate more to charity than liberals do and pay more taxes) and we're only vindictive in the sense that we enjoy giving you a taste of what you've been dishing out for the last eight years. It's tremendously satisfying to see dishonest partisans like ACORN exposed.

"MUL -- and by an incessant stream of derision. Keep telling critics that they're ignorant racists, you'll win them over."

What I see in comments like this is a realization that the conservative movement is dead.

If you look at American history, each political party dominates the bully pulpit in cycles of about 40 years in length.

Obviously, I don't see myself as someone who has the power to "win... over" a significant number of people to effectuate any political changes. I'm just trying to discuss things as I see them. If I can have an interesting exchange with someone who's inclined to seeing political matters differently than me, so be it. But I ain't no Ralph Reed. I ain't no Bob Shrum or Karl Rove. I ain't no political strategist and I don't operate that way. Nor do I intend to.

And yet, I'm convinced the Democrats are set to remain in an entrenched power for quite some time. Why? They have ideas and are no longer afraid of discussing them intellectually. They also seem to have hit upon some important and powerful memes in the political discourse, but the lack of fear they now have is a result of having achieved/recovered an intellectual basis in which to ground their ideas.

I can see that the right lacks this. One can find a sense of fear, of insecurity that they didn't exhibit before. Whether or not they realize what this has to do with their losing power is beside the point. But they are out of power because they have long ago lost any intellectual underpinnings for their arguments.

This is probably why Newt Gingrich is in hibernation. Say what you will about him, he was the only prominent Republican politician during the last 20 years to engage matters in a serious and intellectual way. And that's the way he prefers things. But he's got to be enough of a politician to realize that Obama-ism is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Before that there was Reagan. Reagan gave conservatives the nice, shiny, warm veneer of domestic bliss that must have lulled them into thinking that they would always be seen as the party of safety and security - and that Democrats could be seen as scarier than Communists. But communism fell and the Democrats realized that 2008 was not 1984, or 1960, for that matter. They didn't have to run on smashing the communists or on having to defend themselves from the innuendo that lumps them in with communists. Oh, how things change - even if they didn't change for the right.

And before that was the law and order guy, Nixon - who was also a pathologically paranoid, mendacious crook.

And then we come full circle to Goldwater. Like today's cons, he was too ideological. The right decided to be practical after 1964 - a lesson that they took a good forty years to forget. And that's just how it is.

And yet, I'm convinced the Democrats are set to remain in an entrenched power for quite some time. Why? They have ideas and are no longer afraid of discussing them intellectually. They also seem to have hit upon some important and powerful memes in the political discourse, but the lack of fear they now have is a result of having achieved/recovered an intellectual basis in which to ground their ideas.

I would respectfully disagree. Most of these ideas come straight out of either the 1930s or 1960s. Not the least bit new, and still somewhere been non-functional and dis-functional. They didn't work then, and they are even less likely to work now.

Besides, even if they did have some new ideas, it is trying to implement their old, bad, ones that is going to cost them a lot of seats in the next election. That, and that they recruited a lot of moderate Democrats to run in districts that range from swing to moderate Republican, and those Democrats are being hung out to dry by their Congressional leadership.

That's good. We should get used to him. Very very used to him and tired of him.

I'm there.

* * *

It's strikes me as sad, really. Talking is the only political thing the man knows how to do.

Some politicians seek the microphone just out of ego. Obama has an ego, all right, but his desire to be broadcast is much different than, say, Senator Schumer's thoughtless need to be the biggest SOB in the room. Obama is a thoughtful person. He dreams of leadership. Yet he has no capability to lead except through the personal appeal. The microphone is his only friend.

The result is that he's turned himself into the Democrat's press secretary. Unfortunately that leaves the position of president completely empty.

Modern medicine is like poor people affording kids, jace. And a lot of people figure that the poor shouldn't have children... and not just selfish, nasty republicans either. Otherwise why push so hard for abortion in poor communities?

In any case, it's like affording kids. No one can afford kids. Not ever, no how, no way. The expense expands to capacity, like a closet. Not a person alive can get ahead of it and afford everything a child needs. Not one child, not two, not four. Not if you're Paris Hilton's daddy.

Modern medicine is like that. It expands to capacity and then keeps going.

My husband and I were talking this morning about genetic variation due to the protein that surrounds the DNA and RNA and influences how those genes are copied and I thought... hey, I bet if we knew how that happened we could change those proteins in order to rewrite DNA and cure all sorts of stuff.

Which will make the "problem" of "justice" even worse. Here we made the closet bigger and *boom* it's already full again.

And what if we figure out how to extend life, to end or severely reduce aging? Chances are it will be expensive. Who will get that medical treatment first?

The only way to get justice for "little people" is to severely reduce what is available.

I don't think that's acceptable at all.

Even the poorest people in this country are treated and cured of injury and disease that routinely killed millionaires only a generation ago.

Disagree with Althouse. In the realm of PR, what Lewinsky's lawyer Ginsburg did was legendary. It showed there is no limit to what a lawyer will do to "shape the battleground" and flack for their client as long as there is no limit to the depth the media will sink to in enabling such a lawyer as long as it is "newsworthy" and believed to help ratings.

The "Full Ginsburg" will live on as a term directed to both embarass the practitioner with sly praise..and for the media for whoring to the manipulation.

And yet, I'm convinced the Democrats are set to remain in an entrenched power for quite some time. Why? They have ideas and are no longer afraid of discussing them intellectually. They also seem to have hit upon some important and powerful memes in the political discourse, but the lack of fear they now have is a result of having achieved/recovered an intellectual basis in which to ground their ideas.

Bruce Hayden said...

I would respectfully disagree. Most of these ideas come straight out of either the 1930s or 1960s. Not the least bit new, and still somewhere been non-functional and dis-functional. They didn't work then, and they are even less likely to work now.

Part of the problem is that Obama's people may be failing to fix problems the Republicans and Bill Clinton kicked sown the road.

But the people that kicked it all down the road until it blew up in America's face - disastrous war, a trillion dollar trade deficit, massive corruption and greed on Wall Street that wrecked 40% of Americans life savings, and a heathcare debt Bush II grew from 24 trillion to 37 trillion - are wedded to their own ideas and failed imaginations. They do not as of yet offer a better Centrist Democrat or Republican alternative. Just opposition, demand to do nothing, keep going as we did before with systems and policies collapsing the country around our ears - slowly but surely.

Minimums Republicans need to do to rebuild and become a majority party again:

1. It is hard to argue that 1 trillion on fixing healthcare to help prevent the whole thing from collapsing on 306 million Americans shortly is reckless...but that 1 trillion spent to "help the noble Iraqi Freedom Lovers!!! - create a magnificent new nation" was wise money, well spent.Or that a new trillion-dollar war against Iran would be a brilliant thing rather than rescue a huge part of the US citizenry from healthcare collapsing or their loss of economic competitiveness.

2. Alternatives do not mean Sarah Palin chanting 30-year old Reaganomics slogans. Not when so much of Voodoo economics has clearly, blatantly failed in the public's eyes from Wall Street dereg to destruction of so many great jobs from unfettered "Free Trade with China for the Cause of Freedom for Freedom Lovers!!" Questions about the wrecking of the US manufacturing base meet a typical kneejerk Reagan quote about how "the US worker can outproduce and out-compete any nations workers, by golly!" Ignoring reality. (And the fact Reagan himself set quotas and tariffs).

3. What exactly is the Republican answer to decaying cities, huge areas of the country devestated by permanent or long-term at least loss of good jobs overseas? The concentration of US wealth in the hands of a few? Predictably, it is "more tax cuts for the wealthy" and "Freedom!! Accounts" so people can use their vast surplus disposable income to set up private healthcare accounts and private social security.

4. What is the Republican answer to women now thoroughly spooked by the Religious Right's anti-abortion zealotry and the Terri Schiavo Fiasco? What is their answer to attract minorities? Other than "work hard" someday you'll be a millionaire..honest!

5. To a range of social issues, changing demography, the reality of America's fiscal collapse and China's Rise, and being overextended abroad - we only seem to get "We need more war! Have to take care of 18 foreign crises in the name of American Empire. And any domestic matter can be best looked at from a good 'ol Reagan quote about good 'ol values.

To succeed, Republicans have to:

a.. Suppress the nutty part of the Religious Right and regain the lost woman vote.b. Determine a way to close the vast gap in income and allocation of new wealth gains mainly to the top 1%. c. Policies that address the collapse of US businesses and huge debt due to Free Trade.d. Have a viable alternative to address the healthcare crisis.e. Acknowledgement that supply side economics failed miserably, that "high tech!!" does not mean unlimited resources, and say how Republicans are reformed from favoring the Rich, from reckless Bush II type spending and fiscal irresponsibility, and thirst for starting more wars to Help Our Special Friend/"Spread Freedom!!".f. Be able to journey outside the South and say things that interest the average voter in Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania....even California or Connecticut.g. Abandon the anti-educated voter message that instead glorifies the "regular Joe the Plumber" kinda guy and not "them college educated kinda folks that can find Bra-frikkin' Zill on a map and did well in algebra with the rest of the twerps while I was puttin' mag wheels on my Amuuurican car!Like it or not, college educated voters are not "impure" from the taint of their "libraul egghead teachers" - they are a huge demographic.

"a.. Suppress the nutty part of the Religious Right and regain the lost woman vote."

Any "you must do this" with the word "suppress" in it is evil and wrong.

Other than that, it also won't work.

Freedom isn't about suppressing nutty anyones. Trying to do so only backfires. MUL says that Republicans don't have ideas, and he's pretty much right. So far the biggest *idea* seems to be the need to suppress, to urge civility, to shut people up and stop alienating the supposed bland middle. There are no ideas there.

The nutty Religious Right has ideas and those ideas are mostly compatible with the ideas of the rude Tea Party mobsters whose ideas are mostly compatible with the Reagan reminiscers which are reasonably compatible with libertarian small-government kooks.

Why is ANYONE talking about shutting people up instead of talking about forming coalitions?

Every one of those Sunday talk shows consists of liberals vigorously agreeing with liberals, with the odd faux "conservative" thrown in for "balance." And those shows are watched primarily by urban east coast elites who pantingly agree with the liberal line. So who of the bitter clingers - they who must be reached and swayed - will even be informed by Hussein's wisdom?

Not speaking for Jesus here, since he seems to have his own PR squad...but I would think He would probably approve of your spending quality time with your son, creating good memories, family time and Christian values outside of the confines of a designated four walls Church.

Christianity exists without walls. A soccer field is as good a place as any.

The more he bloviates the same old speech over and over, the more the people oppose it.

Especially since we can read and discuss and we have been, for months.

Keep talkin'.

I thought his Joe Wilson address would have been different--if he were a good politician and leader, he would have analyzed what was needed at the moment and adapted his strategies for more effective results.

Synova said... "a.. Suppress the nutty part of the Religious Right and regain the lost woman vote."Any "you must do this" with the word "suppress" in it is evil and wrong.Other than that, it also won't work.Freedom isn't about suppressing nutty anyones. Trying to do so only backfires.

Sorry Synova, but Parties do suppress. That is how they shape their policies and then determine who leads.

The Republicans suppressed Buchananite racists after 1992. The Dems worked to curb the ability of Southern Dems to call the shots in the party.

In fact, failure to suppress what is bad for the Party leads to incoherency.

A great example is Dubya's Prescription Drug Program.

It was bad seeing seniors headed to Canada and Mexico to buy Drugs. Seniors vote, and they were pissed as anything that they had to pay 40%-100% more for drugs,But forcing Big Pharma to cut prices like they have had to in all other countries was "socialistic" by Republican ideology and againt "Free Markets for Freedom Lovers!!(meaning Big Pharma execs, as the "freedom lovers).But the Republicans also had embraced as their highest ideology "tax cutting" which was great for rich donors and rationalized by dogma that any tax cut would pay for itself under supply side voodoo economics and "trickledown".

Next thing you know the Republicans had a massive new entitlement unfunded by taxpayers intended to satiate seniors and enrich drug makers...that added 13 trillion to our long term entitlement debt.

Getting the nuttier parts of the Southern Religious Right under control again is essential to Republicans being able to grow out of the South and rural backwaters in other states to be a national party again that has success in Northern & Coastal states.

No one is arguing that people that believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, or thought Terri Schiavo was just as aware and intelligent as they were (many were right), or wish to impose their southern Fundie morality on others should be thrown out...just tempered..in a Party that needs a national vision..

Just as brainless 30-year old dogma needs careful re-evaluation after the Prescription Drug Fiasco.

"He's only a man. A politician. Calm down everyone. Think about whether we really want what he's selling. I bet we don't."...

I'm already thinking "Jimmy Carter" for the younger generation. When he leaves office we will still be tired of him and embarrassed at his every appearance... I'll bet he even gets a Nobel Peace Prize as an insult to some future Republican President...

The Failure-to-Appear on FOX is gonna raise FOX in the estimation of many more than will be enchanted... Rookie mistakes-? Still-? or is it Again-?

I love watching democracy in action and hubris in action as well. "Nothing Exceeds Like Excess" and this is excessive...

Obama's problem isn't that his people don't understand he has been saturating the airwaves for 18 months or more now. They know he is overexposed, and that independents are already sick of seeing him.

His problem is they have NOTHING ELSE. There is no experience in leadership in this administration. This is why he allowed the Congress to write the ENTIRE stimulus bill, the ENTIRE cap-'n'-trade bill, and the ENTIRE health care plan.

Although we have heard several times from Obama how urgent it is to pass "his" plans, he has NEVER presented any specific plan of his own. Because he can't. Because he has no clue what he is doing.

Well, when Soros talked Obambi into running, I'm sure Soros assured him that he and his gang would take care of policy, legislation and the WH political team and all Barry had to do was be the pitchman. He is just doing this weekend what he was hired to do - pitch the program for the far left radical group that put him in power and supports him. In the end, that is the one area where he actually has talent and experience and they're milking that for all its worth.

montana urban legend said, What I see in comments like this is a realization that the conservative movement is dead.

What I see in comments like yours is your utter cluelessness.

And yet, I'm convinced the Democrats are set to remain in an entrenched power for quite some time. Why? They have ideas and are no longer afraid of discussing them intellectually.

What planet are you living on?

but the lack of fear they now have is a result of having achieved/recovered an intellectual basis in which to ground their ideas.

"Lack of fear"??????? Major Democrats are wee-weeing themselves over the Tea Partiers!

I can see that the right lacks this. One can find a sense of fear, of insecurity that they didn't exhibit before.

What are the Tea Parties, chopped liver? What about their new-found confidence?

But they are out of power because they have long ago lost any intellectual underpinnings for their arguments.

The only people who are won by intellectual underpinnings are intellectuals, a very small minority who are far less important than they think they are.

This is probably why Newt Gingrich is in hibernation. Say what you will about him, he was the only prominent Republican politician during the last 20 years to engage matters in a serious and intellectual way.

And he was a public relations disaster. That's the REAL reason you're complimenting him. You want him back for target practice. Romney and McCain were good for that, too.

Do you really expect anyone to even consider all of the nonsense you've said?

I don't read TV Guide, but what is the WH thinking? Are they really going to put POTUS on TV on a Sunday during football season? Who's going to be watching? I know I'm not. I'm with Madison Man, daughter has a soccer game. I'd much rather watch her play than watch either POTUS or the NFL.

I am really tired of Obama talking all the time. He is like a person who tries to speak to someone who doesn't understand English - he says the same thing over and over (louder each time) expecting the other person to eventually understand. He somehow cannot grasp that those who disagree with him do so out of principle.

Message to the President: We heard you the first, second, third (how many times has he talked about healthcare - I've lost count) time. You communicated clearly, and we understood you. We don't like and/or want your healthcare plan. And we are not racists for disagreeing with you.